Hacker News Reader

Comment by outworlder | Hacker News Reader

So it has an insane resolution for an insane amount of money. The original monitor also had an insane resolution for the time, but did not cost 5k. 1k is pricey for a monitor, but understandable. If they had segmented and offered a lower resolution monitor for a lower price (basically, an updated Cinema/Thunderbolt display), that would have been enough. The greedy beancounters have fully taken over.

Subjective, but that's also the ugliest piece of hardware Apple has ever created.

View on HN

But its not an insane resolution. Its twice as expensive as 8k monitors and the only reason they used a proprietary resolution was to attempt to justify it. I thought the monitor was going to be around 2-3k like others in its class.

I agree that the stand might be the ugliest thing they've ever made.

I don’t think that the resolution was an attempt to justify the price. If that was the case, why go down in resolution from what’s available? Maybe if they were selling a 9k I would buy it.

Based off some back of the envelope math I did a while ago, I think Apple decided that 6k is the maximum usable resolution for a desktop monitor. At reasonable viewing distances you should be able to tell the difference between a 4K and 8k monitor, but you won’t be able to resolve every single detail of the 8k, hence 6k.

Unless you just make it bigger. They talked about being able to have 6 of the things and were showing dual monitors much of the time. Ultrawides have been demonstrating that there is demand for larger monitors. Most people who want a two or three monitor setup would probably be even happier with a single, larger monitor.

The bigger the monitor (or the more of them you want), the further you have to sit away from them. The further you sit away from them the less you can resolve all the details, making the extra resolution pointless.

If I were going to have multiple monitors, I would skip the Apple monitor and get a bunch of 4K panels.

I thought they made a pretty good case why there is nothing else in its class, the only thing close being the $30k sony reference monitor.

I know nothing about "reference grade" monitors. Can anyone comment on the veracity of the only competing product for this new monitor costing $30,000?

IIRC Sony's is an OLED display. Different display technology. Very expensive. Entirely different. You can't do what an OLED can do with an LCD.

But that's the point. They did do with LCD what, before, was only possible on OLED. That's the claim, anyway.

Isn't that thing OLED? I'm not surprised that it's 30k. It's effectively local dimming... for each pixel. Not at all comparable to Apple's HDR display.

Depends, They had an OLED version that they stopped making or selling the OLED version because it wasn't good enough.

And no, OLED, its current form is not the holy grail as some would like to imagine.

There is, as far as I am aware, only 1 8K Monitor, and that is from Dell, even that after discount is ~$3600. And it isn't anywhere near as good as what Apple claims to have on their Pro XDR.

> has an insane resolution for an insane amount of money

Ever bought a Sony reference monitor?

It can't be any worse than the iMac. While yes it is subjective but Apple has had a pretty long list of ugly and hideous prpducts.

It needs to compete on ugliness with the new Mac Pro. The design and the price, did the inmates really take over?

Inmates?

Was supposed to be about this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum-Products/d...

But doesn't quite add up. Sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com